5D MKII and 6D Speed - FPS?

Hello All,

I currently have a 7D, 175-55is, 50 1.8, 70-200is and a Tamron 18-270 for walk around lens. I shoot my kids playing soccer, indoor basketball, baseball, swimming, karate, etc.. As they get older, their sports will speed up. They are 10-12 now. I also shoot a lot of indoor family pics, usually low light and hopefully, soon some travel pics.

I have never been totally impressed with the 7D's image quality. I do not post process so....Looking back, I liked the pics out of my 40D but I think my 7D pics are nosier and lack pop. Pics I see out of a 5D seem much cleaner, sharper and have more pop. I am sure they have been post processed. I use center point focus only.

So I am thinking about buying a used 5D MkII and 17-40L. I am pretty sure the image quality will make be happy but I am worried about the speed of the camera. FPS = 3.9. vs. the 7Ds 8 FPS. I worry that the 5D MkII is going to be slow, like my old Rebel XTi which was a dog. I very seldom rapid fire when shooting sports. I can't afford to keep 2 bodies or lenses for both EF and EF-S. So I am think about buy a used 5D MkII or 6D, a used 17-40 and selling my 7D and 17-55is.

Can anyone tell me if the 5D MkII is substantially faster than the XTi? Will the 5D MkII really limit me shooting casual sports?

I'd like to get the 5D MkIII but just can't afford or justify that much money. I don't think my skills can justify that purchase either.

Thanks..

Neil

Neil64 wrote in post #16606993
Can anyone tell me if the 5D MkII is substantially faster than the XTi? Will the 5D MkII really limit me shooting casual sports?

I'd like to get the 5D MkIII but just can't afford or justify that much money. I don't think my skills can justify that purchase either.

Thanks..

Neil

Yes, the 5dmkII will be faster but not by a large amount. The xti is 3 frames per second for a total of 10 raw files. The mkII is 3.9 frames per second for a total of 13 raw files.

As for the mkII shooting sports, I cannot help you there. I didn't shoot sports other than the kid's soccer with it.

Just bought a 5dmk2 and i have a 1dmk3 , 5d is much better at high iso and the af is grand I used it last weekend taking MTB photo's shooting single shot with HSS flash and ISO 4000 have a look at my site or facebook page.

Ps sport is not all about FPS

http://www.industryima​ge.com/rostrevor-dh1-12-1-2014

Warren

The two bigger factors against the 5D2 as a sports camera are its AF system and it's long (by dSLR standards) shutter lag. A fast burst is nice to have, but not as important.

I used to use a 5D (the original) as my main camera six years ago and I shot some sports with it. The lag and the AF system can be worked around, especially if you are just shooting your own kid where you will get a lot of opportunities for shots over the course of a season. You will miss some chances, but then it isn't as important.

If you are trying to work fast and cover a whole team, or you really cannot afford to miss an opportunity then I would suggest the 1D Mark III over the 5D Mark II. The 1D3 RAW files are very forgiving and can be improved a lot compared to the 7D.

And that's probably the last point worth covering. You say you don't do any post processing. It might be a lot cheaper overall to get a good quality software with RAW conversion (like Adobe's Lightroom) for a couple hundred bucks and then just keep the 7D. You can probably get some improvement while not having to get a more expensive body and then rework your entire lens lineup to deal with a new format.

Aaaaaand......one more thing. You currently do not have an ultra wide angle zoom lens. Have you really thought it through to replace the 7D / 17-55 lens with a 5D2 and a 17-40? The 17-40 on the 5D2 is going to be a much wider field of view. The FF functional equivalent to the 17-55 is the 24-105L.

Hi JeffreyG makes some very good points there , the 5d will do sports but not as easily as a 1dmk3. I went for the 5d2 for my sport of MTB as i needed better ISO, file size and I was only needing single shot due to working with a flash 70% off the time.

The 1dmk3 will be better than your 7d for FPS and maybe high ISO and AF speed. And of course the size and feel, dust and water proof.

Warren

Neil64 wrote in post #16606993
Hello All,

I currently have a 7D, 175-55is, 50 1.8, 70-200is and a Tamron 18-270 for walk around lens. I shoot my kids playing soccer, indoor basketball, baseball, swimming, karate, etc.. As they get older, their sports will speed up. They are 10-12 now. I also shoot a lot of indoor family pics, usually low light and hopefully, soon some travel pics.

I have never been totally impressed with the 7D's image quality. I do not post process so....Looking back, I liked the pics out of my 40D but I think my 7D pics are nosier and lack pop. Pics I see out of a 5D seem much cleaner, sharper and have more pop. I am sure they have been post processed. I use center point focus only.

So I am thinking about buying a used 5D MkII and 17-40L. I am pretty sure the image quality will make be happy but I am worried about the speed of the camera. FPS = 3.9. vs. the 7Ds 8 FPS. I worry that the 5D MkII is going to be slow, like my old Rebel XTi which was a dog. I very seldom rapid fire when shooting sports. I can't afford to keep 2 bodies or lenses for both EF and EF-S. So I am think about buy a used 5D MkII or 6D, a used 17-40 and selling my 7D and 17-55is.

Can anyone tell me if the 5D MkII is substantially faster than the XTi? Will the 5D MkII really limit me shooting casual sports?

I'd like to get the 5D MkIII but just can't afford or justify that much money. I don't think my skills can justify that purchase either.

Thanks..

Neil

Neil. When your kids sports get faster, why do you want slower? 8 frames per second compared to 4.
The Auto Focus System of the 1Dx and the 5D Mark III all got their starts from the innovative AF System of the 7D. For example, Focus Point Expansion for sports work is great. The 5D Mark III was just added to my collection. As I do a lot of sports work, the Migration of an improved AF System combined with the full frame has allowed me to incorporate the 5D Mark III into my sports work as well.
The real important issue is Post Processing. As you admit you do not do any of it. That is the real issue. Buy Either Apple Aperture or Lightroom. Shoot raw and learn how to do your post processing. It really does make all the difference in the world. And I am not talking about Photoshoping an image to death. For example, Small adjustments in exposure, if necessary, vibrancy, contrast and sharpening can make your images pop.
You have a wonderful 7D with the 17-55 and the 70-200 IS. Your Tool Kit is not the issue. As you learn the Post Processing process, you will find that your images do indeed really Pop.
Look below at my signature as I can vouch for you tool kit and the results that you are looking for. The images that I have created with you kit are yours to achieve.

Neil. I still have my Rebel XTi and 40D in my home. Do I use them? No. However when I do decide to pull them of the shelf, I remember how much I captured and leaned while using these two bodies. Enjoy the ride and enjoy learning how to really put your tools to work. You don't know how lucky you are with your kit.

Thanks all for the replies. I agree that I need to look at what post processing can do and have dabbled a bit in Canon's DPP. But when I look at files out of a 7D and look at results on the web at what came out of a 5D MkII, I am amazed. The 5D pics seems so smooth, sharp and detailed while the 7D images seem harsh, flat and lifeless. I attribute this to noise. Of course this is pixel peeping on a 27" monitor and has no bearing on 4x6 prints but I want to be happy and proud of the shots I take. Since most of the shots I take are family, I want them to look their best.
I realize that speedwise I'd be moving backwards but image quality moving forwards. I do not use anything other than centerpoint focusing on the 7D. I have tried various expansions but don't get the results I want. Certainly attributed to my own learning curve. Still shooting Av and have not mastered manual yet. The 7D is truly a complex piece. I felt much more comfortable with my 40D and the pics that came out of it. Lowlight performance is much better in the 7D than the 40D.
If I get the the 5D MkII and the 17-40, I would probably grab a used Tamron 28-75 2.8. I would expect great sharp shots with slow focus and some hunting in low light. What I can't afford to do is go back to anything remotely slow as the XTi. I missed so many shots due to speed. As no local stored has a 5D MkII and the MkIII is completely cost prohibitive, I thought I'd pick your brains.

5d MkII is slow compared to your 7d, in all around use. If you feel comfortable going backwards in that regard, then it might make it worth your while.

Full frame is NOT going to make your images better unless you post process them. You will need to process them to get results that you are happy with (like you see online). So start with post processing too. Since you do shoot Jpeg, have you tried adjusting the in camera settings to get a little more "pop"? That would be my very first step.

I think the reason that the 5d pics look so much better is because most people who are willing to invest big $$ into cameras are really into masuering their craft....

I've seen pretty great shots on here out of an iPhone.....

My $.02

Neil64 wrote in post #16607837
Thanks all for the replies. I agree that I need to look at what post processing can do and have dabbled a bit in Canon's DPP. But when I look at files out of a 7D and look at results on the web at what came out of a 5D MkII, I am amazed. The 5D pics seems so smooth, sharp and detailed while the 7D images seem harsh, flat and lifeless. I attribute this to noise. Of course this is pixel peeping on a 27" monitor and has no bearing on 4x6 prints but I want to be happy and proud of the shots I take. Since most of the shots I take are family, I want them to look their best.
I realize that speedwise I'd be moving backwards but image quality moving forwards. I do not use anything other than centerpoint focusing on the 7D. I have tried various expansions but don't get the results I want. Certainly attributed to my own learning curve. Still shooting Av and have not mastered manual yet. The 7D is truly a complex piece. I felt much more comfortable with my 40D and the pics that came out of it. Lowlight performance is much better in the 7D than the 40D.
If I get the the 5D MkII and the 17-40, I would probably grab a used Tamron 28-75 2.8. I would expect great sharp shots with slow focus and some hunting in low light. What I can't afford to do is go back to anything remotely slow as the XTi. I missed so many shots due to speed. As no local stored has a 5D MkII and the MkIII is completely cost prohibitive, I thought I'd pick your brains.

This really isn't about new equipment but rather learning to get the best out of what you have already. Flat and lifeless needs processing, it's not a result of noise but rather lighting and contrast. Nothing wrong with AV in most situations. Really, shoot raw, get Lightroom and learn to do PP. You'll be the happier for it. A new camera is not a magic bullet and you'll be disappointed. If you're looking for an excuse to buy a new body just buy one.

Make sure you expose properly with the 7D and you'll find the image quality isn't bad. Use the available AF points to vary your composition, zoom in close, let the highly configurable AF system perform its best to get you sharp images that contains a lot of action. Interesting photos make image noise level less important, since nobody will look at that. They'll look at the picture, not at pixels.

My opinion is that if you can't take interesting images with a 7D, then you can't with a 1DX either. It may be funnier, though...

Your 7D should be more than capable to produce stunning results. The 5D II won't instantly give you those wow shots. It may even be a step back with its FPS and AF capability. I've had my 7D for years and it has given me excellent results with baseball, softball. The 5D2 is better for noise but at the expense of less capable AF. If you're taking shots outside, I would say AF trumps ISO. Noise you can fix, but not out-of-focus shots.

Neil.
Looking at files from the web is like Apples and Oranges. You don't really know what was involved. We do know that if you do not learn how to post process, you are under utilizing your kit. No matter what you buy, it will never live up to what you think it should be. Enjoy the learning.